the deciders

so, a few podcasts to kick this off:
NPR: Planet Money is a great podcast for people (like me) trying to understand what the whole credit/mortgage crisis means. It's run in part by Alex Blumberg, who did many of the economics segments for This American Life.
I've also been enjoying KCRW's Left, Right, and Center. It's a roundtable discussion, very straightforward, but manages to recruit more interesting voices (read: less partisan TV faces who just vomit talking points) to the discussion.

So.

It seems like there are kind of 2 economics-related debates going on, although they both relate to the central idea of government 'meddling' in the free market. Now, I left all the cool articles I printed out at home, so I can't link to all of them right now, but the gist of it (and feel free to disagree if you want) is that progressive approaches to the market seem to be more successful than supply side approaches. It's still unclear whether a perfectly unfettered market will outperform both of these approaches, but frankly, Ron Paul isn't going to be president, so we don't have to worry about that. I'm sorry to Reaganites, but frontloading the uber-wealthy with money doesn't work. Now, it works if your definition is to increase the GDP over time, but the "trickle down" portion - not so much. I'll leave this with a quote from a recent Times editorial:

For decades, typical Americans have not been rewarded for their increasing productivity with comparably higher pay or better benefits. The disconnect between work and reward has been especially acute during the Bush years, as workers’ incomes fell while corporate profits, which flow to investors and company executives, ballooned. For workers, that is a fundamental flaw in today’s economy. It is grounded in policies like a chronically inadequate minimum wage and an increasingly unprogressive tax system

The other portion of the debate is over the bailout. It's almost impossible for anyone to argue that the bailout is unnecessary. The questions are: who are the true culprits, and how do we protect from what appears to be happening (a reverse Robin Hood situation in which the taxpayers are funding economic relief for CEOs). In discussion of all of this, one of the most insane ideas is a call for some sort of ironclad plan for 'solving' this crisis. This is a talking point that John McCain has been parroting: he came out with a definitive "step to take" (fire Chris Cox) whereas Barack Obama has offered more nuanced responses. (Apparently, 'nuance' has jumped the connotation fence from positive to negative). So, lets take 'stock' (ha!) of our most important "deciders", shall we?

1. Henry Paulson
'King' Henry is trying to pull the exact same BS that we've gotten from the Bush administration before. He has taken a crisis and is attempting to capitalize on its emotional component, proposing a $700 billion bailout plan with no protection for taxpayers and ownership over allocation of said funds with absolute immunity over his decisions. His response to authoring a 2 page plan to outline an enormous investment in what amounts to "toxic waste" loans? He says, "Now is a time for action." With the unspoken, "and later is a time for questions, but never for me."

Does this sound familiar? This type of "we have to do what I say, and there's no time to explain why" attempts at mob hysteria are exactly what got us unto untenable situations with no roadmap in our recent foreign policy blunders. And its what is leading Paulson to promote a plan that (and get ready for a string of NY Times articles here - I told you, I left my bigger, cooler set of articles at home) Paul Krugman calls "cash for trash." William Kristol shares his concern:

I’m doubtful that the only thing standing between us and a financial panic is for Congress to sign this week, on behalf of the American taxpayer, a $700 billion check over to the Treasury...[it] would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency.

Let's also not forget: Henry Paulson used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs. And while defenders of Paulson suggested that we "not question the firemen who are here to put out the fire," Stephen Colbert awesomely noted that these 'firemen' also happen to be the arsonists, so some questions might not be so bad.

2. John McCain

This brings us to our GOP candidate. McCain is in love with this sort of knee-jerk decisiveness. This recently surfaced with respect to the Russia-Georgia crisis. McCain called it"the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War" (forget that whole 'Islamic terrorists' thing he's been hooting about), suggested to pull Russia out of the G8, and threatened military action, while deriding Obama's nuanced approach, which he likened to "voting present." It has continued with this economics discussion. McCain has derided Obama's nuance, while touting his own decisiveness in suggesting the firing of SEC chairman Chris Cox. Decisive!

Too bad its been universally derided. And by universal, i mean "including George Will":

I mean, he says that McCain "once again substituted vehemence for coherence". If there's a more thorough indictment on rash decision-making, I'd like to see it. Well, maybe there is, in Will's followup article:

But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

Yeah, this guy is no Michael Bloomberg. Now, the other issue referenced in Roundtable was McCain's attempt to rebrand himself as a deregulator, something that is categorically opposite to McCain's economic instincts.

3. Phil Gramm

And this is because he is an economic protege of Phil Gramm, the former senator who also used to be McCain's campaign advisor until he made that unwise remark about "a nation of whiners" and was excused officially as a McCain advisor while still traveling with McCain and, frankly, continuing to advise him. Gramm authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act which reduced government regulations in existence since the Great Depression separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. Gramm and McCain are supply-side deregulators attempting to paint themselves as something else, in an era in which deregulation has been catastrophic, and that's the bottom line. Let's remember this when we wonder if John McCain learned his lesson from the Keating Five scandal, in which he aided the chairman of Lincoln Savings and Loan during the Savings and Loan crisis.

So what does he do? He specializes in the kind of counterbranding successfully used by Roger Ailes and Fox News. He repaints himself as a regulator and "fresh-blood" in Washington with an unparalleled show of "truthiness". (Read that truthiness article by Frank Rich). He pushes to "otherize" his opponent, playing on bigotry and xenophobia. (Amana should enjoy that Kristof link).

But recent polls have suggested that he pushed too far with this type of propaganda and that his contentions are finally being rejected in favor of the truth. And this brings us to the first presidential debate. New York magazine has a nice article on the challenges facing each candidate. Will Obama tame his tendency to over-ruminate? Will McCain's increasingly innacurate catch-phrases win the day? We'll find out. And I want to extend an invitation to anyone reading: I'm going to attempt to live-blog the debate. If anyone else also wants to live-blog the debate and send me your thoughts, I will pool everyone's comments and publish a presidential debate live megapost next week!!!!! Cool.

2 final thoughts:
1. There was a NYTimes Magazine article that I can't find on how fish are basically disappearing. Well, I heard something very cool on the Takeaway yesterday, called The Blue Ocean Fishphone. Basically, when you're considering ordering fish at a market or restaurant, you can send a text, find out the environmental cost of ordering this fish (based on fishing practices, species population, etc) and get viable alternatives. Sounds awesome.

2. Such a cool Op-Ed that I'm going to post it separately.